Author
Topic: Religious paradox (Read 6098 times)

The infinite regress is something almost every atheist realizes I'm sure, most religious people don't, because they have the 'answer'. Would it make more sense to believe an intelligent deity was just always around? I believe the infinite regress makes more sense without the belief that a magical deity was always around. Your thoughts? Also, here's a few reasons why bible god can never exist. You can't be fair and just. Thousands and thousands of people were slaughtered ruthlessly in the name of god. If catholic priests are so into their religion, and believe in an all seeing could they molest children? How can someone ever do something to deserve burning eternally(paradox in itself, we know brains are the reason we feel pain). Heaven would get boring after a while eh? God has been depicted on a throne, being the king of kings(human invention). if there are angels and demons all around us consistently, when I masturbate do the angels frown and demons giggle? How can thinking wishfully be considered prayer?

I hope someone enjoys this and answers these questions well, I'm new to this site, I type all this out on my iPhone, so if I making spelling or context errors I'm sorry if it bothers you, it bothers me when people do it too.

Welcome to the forums Atheistisaweirdword. You ask some great questions, and bring up some marvelous imagery. I love the frowning angels and the giggling little demons. In terms of burning eternally, it seems that they have really excellent healthcare in the underworld, enabling our brains to continue sending pain messages to our extremities, in spite of the debilitating fire in the lake.

Wishful thinking and prayer? Oh, I think I've shared this one on the forum before, but it is just so good:

The infinite regress is something almost every atheist realizes I'm sure, most religious people don't, because they have the 'answer'. Would it make more sense to believe an intelligent deity was just always around? I believe the infinite regress makes more sense without the belief that a magical deity was always around.

G'day mate and welcome. Could you explain what you mean by infinite regress.

and yes it is a weird word, but not as weird as vug.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

The infinite regress means what it means. I'll give you an example. 'where'd the universe come from? Where'd the thing that created the quarks that supposedly started the universe come from, where'd that come from? You have to come to conclusion that something always had to exist, it's the only logical conclusion. No denying it, humans can't understand it and astrophicists say it's not even a question worth asking because it will never be able to be answered, hence the infinite part. Something has always had to exist, that's why I'm not agnostic, I just see a less logical reason behind some entity with magic and intelligence always being than small qauntum mechanics always being and producing the universe. To me that just makes a lot more sense.

Couldn't watch the video of the prayer thing, my favorite church songs is 'wash me in your blood', 'human sacrifice is okay' and of course my favorite 'god is great' the other 2 are imaginatary. The funny thing about that is, actually not so funny but ironic as fuck. Is that the guy who made millions off that song died in a car accident(I wonder right when he was about to die if he said 'god isn't great'.

The infinite regress means what it means. I'll give you an example. 'where'd the universe come from? Where'd the thing that created the quarks that supposedly started the universe come from, where'd that come from? You have to come to conclusion that something always had to exist, it's the only logical conclusion.

Uh... No. Your question assumes that the universe had to come from something. Why not from nothing?

Logged

My names are many, yet I am One.-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

The infinite regress means what it means. I'll give you an example. 'where'd the universe come from? Where'd the thing that created the quarks that supposedly started the universe come from, where'd that come from? You have to come to conclusion that something always had to exist, it's the only logical conclusion.

Uh... No. Your question assumes that the universe had to come from something. Why not from nothing?

I'm sure we've all seen the YouTube video of Laurene Krauss, but that's my conclusion, if the nothing that he describes is that, but you have to understand a little bit, that nothing is popping in out of existence has to be something, because it's existing. It's nothing nothing to me if it exists, even though it is a kind of nothingness, I still consider anything that exists something. This was more based on the Christian view that creationism makes sense. But yeah you're right and I agree with the nothing that Laurence Krauss describes. What we would do without charismatic smart scientists eh? Was just trying to prove a point that it makes less sense if an intelligent creator was just always there.

I believe the infinite regress makes more sense without the belief that a magical deity was always around. Your thoughts?

I disagree. A deity is at least an attempt to find an answer to the question of origin, while infinite regress postpones the search.

Quote

Also, here's a few reasons why bible god can never exist. You can't be fair and just. Thousands and thousands of people were slaughtered ruthlessly in the name of god.

What people do has no bearing on whether the god of the Bible exists. We could all start wearing chicken suits tomorrow in the name of Thor; this does not make Thor any more or less existent.

Quote

If catholic priests are so into their religion, and believe in an all seeing could they molest children?

Belief and action are not the same thing. One can believe one thing, yet in a moment of weakness do something contrary to that belief. From what I understand, many molesters fool themselves into thinking that they are not harming their victims, and even that their victims are consenting. This can be a very hard cycle to break, and for some of them an abstract belief is not enough to do it.

Quote

How can someone ever do something to deserve burning eternally(paradox in itself, we know brains are the reason we feel pain). Heaven would get boring after a while eh? God has been depicted on a throne, being the king of kings(human invention).

Depictions of heaven and hell are often translated into human imagery, be it fire and brimestone or clouds or virgins, etc. Many Christians believe these are analogues. For example, a lot of religious writers state that the pain of hell comes from separation from God, not a literal fire.

Quote

if there are angels and demons all around us consistently, when I masturbate do the angels frown and demons giggle?

Quote

Yes How can thinking wishfully be considered prayer?

It's not. Prayer is an attempt to communicate with a deity, which is not the same as thinking wishfully.

I believe the infinite regress makes more sense without the belief that a magical deity was always around. Your thoughts?

I disagree. A deity is at least an attempt to find an answer to the question of origin, while infinite regress postpones the search.

Quote

Also, here's a few reasons why bible god can never exist. You can't be fair and just. Thousands and thousands of people were slaughtered ruthlessly in the name of god.

What people do has no bearing on whether the god of the Bible exists. We could all start wearing chicken suits tomorrow in the name of Thor; this does not make Thor any more or less existent.

Quote

If catholic priests are so into their religion, and believe in an all seeing could they molest children?

Belief and action are not the same thing. One can believe one thing, yet in a moment of weakness do something contrary to that belief. From what I understand, many molesters fool themselves into thinking that they are not harming their victims, and even that their victims are consenting. This can be a very hard cycle to break, and for some of them an abstract belief is not enough to do it.

Quote

How can someone ever do something to deserve burning eternally(paradox in itself, we know brains are the reason we feel pain). Heaven would get boring after a while eh? God has been depicted on a throne, being the king of kings(human invention).

Depictions of heaven and hell are often translated into human imagery, be it fire and brimestone or clouds or virgins, etc. Many Christians believe these are analogues. For example, a lot of religious writers state that the pain of hell comes from separation from God, not a literal fire.

Quote

if there are angels and demons all around us consistently, when I masturbate do the angels frown and demons giggle?

Quote

Yes How can thinking wishfully be considered prayer?

It's not. Prayer is an attempt to communicate with a deity, which is not the same as thinking wishfully.

The first one doesn't make sense to me, if we're searching for a god who created the universe why would he even be in the universe if it's just another creation? Also I was just messing around about the last few, invisible demons and angels thing. But what happens when we are 100% sure of the origin and without a doubt sure. Would the human race really just be satisfied? I'm not saying if we found out there was a god, I'm talking about scientifically knew the origin. We still all die in the end and it wouldn't matter? Consciousness is consciousness, and mortality is mortality.

The first one doesn't make sense to me, if we're searching for a god who created the universe why would he even be in the universe if it's just another creation?

Good chain of thought here. Someone must then have created the God who has created the universe. Maybe some christians will argument like this: "God doesn't need a creator, he's the creator himself..."

But what happens when we are 100% sure of the origin and without a doubt sure. Would the human race really just be satisfied? I'm not saying if we found out there was a god, I'm talking about scientifically knew the origin. We still all die in the end and it wouldn't matter? Consciousness is consciousness, and mortality is mortality.

I think it is realistic that some day we will know everything about how the universe exactly emerged. A hundred years ago nobody would have thought that we will some day land on the moon and that we could clone animals...

But as you say, I think this will not suffice. Because we will presumably never exactly know what will happen after one dies.

Also: Why has there always be a reson for everything? It is not nice to think, but all could just be a big coincidence.. We do just not exactly now NOW how everything started, that's what I think..

The first one doesn't make sense to me, if we're searching for a god who created the universe why would he even be in the universe if it's just another creation?

Good chain of thought here. Someone must then have created the God who has created the universe. Maybe some christians will argument like this: "God doesn't need a creator, he's the creator himself..."

But what happens when we are 100% sure of the origin and without a doubt sure. Would the human race really just be satisfied? I'm not saying if we found out there was a god, I'm talking about scientifically knew the origin. We still all die in the end and it wouldn't matter? Consciousness is consciousness, and mortality is mortality.

I think it is realistic that some day we will know everything about how the universe exactly emerged. A hundred years ago nobody would have thought that we will some day land on the moon and that we could clone animals...

But as you say, I think this will not suffice. Because we will presumably never exactly know what will happen after one dies.

Also: Why has there always be a reson for everything? It is not nice to think, but all could just be a big coincidence.. We do just not exactly now NOW how everything started, that's what I think..

Well that's what I think the universe is, a coincidence, I don't neccessarily think it has a 'purpose'. Yeah we will never know what happens after death, but we can presume it to be in the definition of the word death.

No it does not seem plausible, because at the moment we cannot explain everything.

Let's assume we were back in the 11th century or so. Would it seem plausible if I told you that someday people will walk on the moon?

For me this is not a conter-argument or a compelling consequence that there must be somewhat supernatural just because we cannot explain it. Why do you think, if there is something we cannot explain that it has to be something supernatural?

No it does not seem plausible, because at the moment we cannot explain everything.

Let's assume we were back in the 11th century or so. Would it seem plausible if I told you that someday people will walk on the moon?

For me this is not a conter-argument or a compelling consequence that there must be somewhat supernatural just because we cannot explain it. Why do you think, if there is something we cannot explain that it has to be something supernatural?

I wouldn't say that is a fair dichotomy because I think there is a further assumption here, which is that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. We have certainly increased in knowledge about the natural world, but this does not suggest that this line of inquiry can ever completely describe reality. To describe some mechanism does not rule out agency. You could only rule out agency when you have explained origins. To use evidence from mechanisms to suggest God lives in a gap that science hasn't explained yet is like trying to prove a painting didn't have a painter by measuring the dimensions of the frame and describing the chemical composition of the paint. God is the Creator of the Universe, and science hasn't gotten anywhere near His territory. There is no evidence for origins at all. You've admitted that naturalistic explanations sound like miracles, so why should you prefer one or the other? Why does a mind behind the Universe seem implausible to you?

No it does not seem plausible, because at the moment we cannot explain everything.

Let's assume we were back in the 11th century or so. Would it seem plausible if I told you that someday people will walk on the moon?

For me this is not a conter-argument or a compelling consequence that there must be somewhat supernatural just because we cannot explain it. Why do you think, if there is something we cannot explain that it has to be something supernatural?

I wouldn't say that is a fair dichotomy because I think there is a further assumption here, which is 1.) that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. We have certainly increased in knowledge about the natural world, but 2.) this does not suggest that this line of inquiry can ever completely describe reality. To 3.) describe some mechanism does not rule out agency. You could only rule out agency when you have explained origins.4.) To use evidence from mechanisms to suggest God lives in a gap that science hasn't explained yet is like trying to prove a painting didn't have a painter by measuring the dimensions of the frame and describing the chemical composition of the paint. 5.) God is the Creator of the Universe, and science hasn't gotten anywhere near His territory.6.) There is no evidence for origins at all.7.) You've admitted that naturalistic explanations sound like miracles, so why should you prefer one or the other?8.) Why does a mind behind the Universe seem implausible to you?

1. bold: Yes, in my opinion this is true. But just because we don't know exactly how, does it mean there is none? (From your perspectice: Just because you don't have a scientific evidence of God, it does not mean to you he does not exist.)

2. bold: This is true, if you see the dimensions of the universe it is likely that we will never know everything: We will never know any 'naturalistic explanation' for everything, but this does not mean, that there is not a naturalistic explanation.

3. bold: I hope I understand this proper (english is not my first language): Do you mean agency as 'influence'? What I intended to say is "For me this is not a conter-argument or a compelling consequence that there must be somewhat supernatural just because we cannot explain it." You are now saying that i ruled out the agency of something supernatural. If you re-read my sentence you will see I was not saying this. I am just asking, assumed that we don't know something, why HAS there to be the influence of something supernatural? Do you think that everything we don't know was influenced by something supernatural? That is the point I am trying to find out.

4. bold: If the painting is older than 13 Mrd. of years it is indeed difficult to find out who the painter was. I dont exactly see the point of your statement here. May it be because of my English skills.

5. bold: This is an assumption/belief of your side, as well as I believe that God does not exist.

6. bold: There is no evidence of God at all.

7. bold: I have not admitted this but I will do now: Yes I think some naturalistic explanations are like miracles, but they are based on evidences. I.e. photosynthesis seems miraculous to me, or the fact that what we see of the sun is delayed by somewhat over eight minutes.Or as hitchens would describe it:

"We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe" [...] "If you read Hawking on the "event horizon," that theoretical lip of the "black hole" over which one could in theory plunge and see the past and the future (except that one would, regrettably and by definition, not have enough "time"), I shall be surprised if you can still go on gaping at Moses and his unimpressive "burning bush."

8. bold: Good question. Why does it seem implausible to me? I am not exactly sure. Maybe because there are is so much suffering in the world. Why would one with the power to create our universe let this happen and who has created the creator? Why does it sound plausible that there is one to you?

yes. This is a good assumption and one that should be made. Why? Because every single supernatural explanation we have used in the past has been demolished by naturalistic explanations. Because supernatural explanations do not actually explain anything. Because supernatural explanations do not make accurate predictions.

Let us look at illness. Once upon a time it was thought to be caused by "evil spirits". That explanation is a projection of our selves onto the problem. What causes illness? Invisible people. That explanation predicts we could scare away or placate these invisible people through various methods - scary masks, rituals, offerings, etc. Thus, illness could be avoided using these methods. Did that actually explain anything? Heck no. Was that an accurate prediction? Heck no.

Fast forward a couple thousand years, and we came to understand illness comes from a variety of germs, bacteria and viruses. Does that explain? Heck yes. Does it make accurate predictions? Heck yes.

Science 1, primitive supernatural beliefs 0.

Need we tally up the score of the whole game or is this example illustrative?

Actually, it does. If gravity works the same way every time, all the time, then it is pretty safe to say if there is an invisible person behind it, the invisible person cannot do it any other way, is not at liberty to do otherwise. Thus, the invisible gravity person has no agency and is indistinguishable from a natural law.

Sure, gravity may describe the paths of the planets, but that does not rule out the possibility they are not pulled by gods in charriots through their respective courses. <-- this is what you are saying.

To use evidence from mechanisms to suggest God lives in a gap that science hasn't explained yet is like trying to prove a painting didn't have a painter by measuring the dimensions of the frame and describing the chemical composition of the paint.

I don't see the analogy, but that doesn't really matter. None of us are saying god lives in a gap. That is what the religious people do. We say gods only live in your imaginations.

For a lot of reasons. For one, where did the mind come from? For two, I have no reason to suppose such a mind. For three, a mind is an emergent trait of a brain, which is a physical organ. When the brain dies, the mind disappears. No brain, no mind. You are talking about a disembodied personality, which is a contradiction in terms. Where in the world have you or anyone else ever encountered a disembodied personality?

It actually *is* plausible based on our current understanding of physics. We know that virtual particles appear and disappear constantly in empty space. It's allowed under quantum mechanics as long as the product of the particle's energy (mass) and the time that it exists is less than Planck's constant. Recent measurements have shown that for the universe, delta E = 0. This means that delta T can be infinite, i.e., the universe can exist forever. What the universe spawned from could be a multiverse that has existed forever, or where time is meaningless.

Do I find this utterly convincing? No. But adding a deity into the mix just adds one more (unnecessary and unproven) layer of complication to the problem. You have to wave your hand and give the deity special dispensation (everything but god requires a creator) or else it's just another piece of the chain that you have to explain.

1. bold: Yes, in my opinion this is true. But just because we don't know exactly how, does it mean there is none? (From your perspectice: Just because you don't have a scientific evidence of God, it does not mean to you he does not exist.)

It doesn't mean there is none, it just means that there is no evidence to say that there is. I would also say there is scientific evidence of God, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws and information in DNA.

2. bold: This is true, if you see the dimensions of the universe it is likely that we will never know everything: We will never know any 'naturalistic explanation' for everything, but this does not mean, that there is not a naturalistic explanation.

It doesn't mean that there isn't, but you also have to recognize that it is speculatory. You cannot empirically prove it, and since naturalists value empirical proofs above all else, how can you dismiss supernatural claims when naturalistic ones can't always be empirically proved either?

3. bold: I hope I understand this proper (english is not my first language): Do you mean agency as 'influence'? What I intended to say is "For me this is not a conter-argument or a compelling consequence that there must be somewhat supernatural just because we cannot explain it." You are now saying that i ruled out the agency of something supernatural. If you re-read my sentence you will see I was not saying this. I am just asking, assumed that we don't know something, why HAS there to be the influence of something supernatural? Do you think that everything we don't know was influenced by something supernatural? That is the point I am trying to find out.

I never said it *has* to be as a matter of argument, although I don't believe Universes happen by themselves, with a purely naturalistic explanation. There are lots of things we don't know..while I think God created everything, and is in control, it doesn't mean that I attribute everything we don't understand to a supernatural explanation. I think however that we need to understand God to interpret what we see in the world.

4. bold: If the painting is older than 13 Mrd. of years it is indeed difficult to find out who the painter was. I dont exactly see the point of your statement here. May it be because of my English skills.

The point is that if you're going to say that because we understand classical mechanics, we can say that God didn't make those rules, is the same as saying that because we analysed the composition of the paint, that we can rule out a painter.

7. bold: I have not admitted this but I will do now: Yes I think some naturalistic explanations are like miracles, but they are based on evidences. I.e. photosynthesis seems miraculous to me, or the fact that what we see of the sun is delayed by somewhat over eight minutes.Or as hitchens would describe it:

"We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe" [...] "If you read Hawking on the "event horizon," that theoretical lip of the "black hole" over which one could in theory plunge and see the past and the future (except that one would, regrettably and by definition, not have enough "time"), I shall be surprised if you can still go on gaping at Moses and his unimpressive "burning bush."

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard DawkinsThe Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel LaureateWhat Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

The Universe looks designed, and something like a catepillar metamorphosing into a butterfly I would say is miraclous. When you factor in DNA, which meets the criteria for being a coded language: grammar, syntax, alphabet, compression, error correction, storage, etc..why wouldn't you suspect a design? Do you have something inherently against the idea of design?

8. bold: Good question. Why does it seem implausible to me? I am not exactly sure. Maybe because there are is so much suffering in the world. Why would one with the power to create our universe let this happen and who has created the creator? Why does it sound plausible that there is one to you?

Before I came to know God, I wasn't sure what to think. I just said "I don't know" and didn't go much further than that. I didn't see any evidence of the supernatural, but I couldn't rule it out. When I started investigating the truth God gave me revelation and that's why I believe.

It doesn't mean there is none, it just means that there is no evidence to say that there is. I would also say there is scientific evidence of God, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws and information in DNA.

Right, there is no evidence to say that there is. We can state this. As well as we can state that there is no scientific evidence of God, such as the tuning of the physical laws and information in DNA. Can you accept this?

It doesn't mean that there isn't, but you also have to recognize that it is speculatory. You cannot empirically prove it, and since naturalists value empirical proofs above all else, how can you dismiss supernatural claims when naturalistic ones can't always be empirically proved either?

This is true. It is, at the moment speculatory. But can you also accept: how can you dismiss scientific claims when theist ones can never be empirically proved either?

I never said it *has* to be as a matter of argument, although I don't believe Universes happen by themselves, with a purely naturalistic explanation. There are lots of things we don't know..while I think God created everything, and is in control, it doesn't mean that I attribute everything we don't understand to a supernatural explanation. I think however that we need to understand God to interpret what we see in the world.

Ok, nothing to state here. If you say it in this way, it seems illogical to me that you believe in a God of the gaps. But this is your way of thinking.

The point is that if you're going to say that because we understand classical mechanics, we can say that God didn't make those rules, is the same as saying that because we analysed the composition of the paint, that we can rule out a painter.

I was making the statement that, in the theory of God, He created everything.

And I am making the statement that, in the theory (or better said hypothesis as at the moment we don't have a theory in the scientific way about the origin of the universe) of science, there is no God.

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard DawkinsThe Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel LaureateWhat Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

The Universe looks designed, and something like a catepillar metamorphosing into a butterfly I would say is miraclous. When you factor in DNA, which meets the criteria for being a coded language: grammar, syntax, alphabet, compression, error correction, storage, etc..why wouldn't you suspect a design? Do you have something inherently against the idea of design?

Yes, I have something inherently against the idea of a design. For example, why, assumed God is almighty/omnipotent, why are there so many errors in his designs?

Before I came to know God, I wasn't sure what to think. I just said "I don't know" and didn't go much further than that. I didn't see any evidence of the supernatural, but I couldn't rule it out. When I started investigating the truth God gave me revelation and that's why I believe.

Now you are just going that way: God exists. Point.

Can you describe this "God gave me revelation" did he speak to you in person?

My whole point here is. At the current state of knowledge, we have neither evidence for nor against God or the influence of something supernatural. The big difference here is. Religion says, that God exists. And they are so fucking certain in it. I am not saying, that we can state that there is no God, I just have really big worries going with that thought. But relegious people damn all who do not believe what they believe. There would be no moral and all people who do not believe are idiots and will burn for ever.

Do you see the difference and can AND will you understand my point as I am accepting yours. The problem is not what is true or right. Because we'll probably never find out. The problem is the ignorance and narrow mindedness of some people which causes so much additional suffering in this not even perfectly created world by an assumed omnipotent God.

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard DawkinsThe Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel LaureateWhat Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

The Universe looks designed, and something like a catepillar metamorphosing into a butterfly I would say is miraclous. When you factor in DNA, which meets the criteria for being a coded language: grammar, syntax, alphabet, compression, error correction, storage, etc..why wouldn't you suspect a design?

The problem with the "looks designed" assertion is that it doesn't even work in the context of what you are arguing. In a universe where everything was magicked into existence by God, where nothing could possibly exist unless it was created by God, what would something "not designed" even look like? What is the basis for comparison here? You're left with nothing but the tautology of "everything that was designed by God was designed", leaving your less-than-objective assessment of design with much to be desired.

I have something inherently against the idea of using anthropocentric bias to support anthropocentric conceit. For example, the comparison of DNA to coded language only works because we process everything through associations, patterns, and concepts. DNA itself is not language, that's simply a communicable concept that we can reduce it to. That's how subjectivity works - by interpreting things in ways that are the most meaningful to us.

Using your completely arbitrary metric of 'design' I can conclude that the rock in my backyard must have been created specifically to be used in my argument. It may not look like something that was masterfully crafted by an omnipotent deity, but the fact that something so seemingly mundane can be used as an example of how silly this whole exercise is evidence that a designer must have made it just for me. It fits so perfectly, too, like it was designed for my convenience.

I never said it *has* to be as a matter of argument, although I don't believe Universes happen by themselves, with a purely naturalistic explanation. There are lots of things we don't know..while I think God created everything, and is in control, it doesn't mean that I attribute everything we don't understand to a supernatural explanation. I think however that we need to understand God to interpret what we see in the world.

Well the problem here is that "supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron - it doesn't explain anything, it just employs an unfalsifiable, unsupportable assertion. By definition the supernatural is beyond what is explainable. Simply saying "Goddidit" and insisting that God is magic and therefore requires no explanation doesn't explain anything at all, it just hand-waves away many additional questions that such postulates raise. And the ultimate irony of this kind of "explanation" is that it relies entirely upon ignorance. Indeed, the whole gist of your design argument rests upon the facts that A) science can't explain it and B) science can't disprove it. Why should ignorance be a compelling case for anything other than admitting we don't know? Why should an unfalsifiable, unsupportable assertion suffice as an explanation for anything?

In a universe where everything was magicked into existence by God, where nothing could possibly exist unless it was created by God, what would something "not designed" even look like?

That strikes me as being a strange question. You're asking for an explanation of what created designed looks like if it wasn't designed. How is that possible? How is the fact that it isn't possible compelling?

That strikes me as being a strange question. You're asking for an explanation of what created designed looks like if it wasn't designed. How is that possible? How is the fact that it isn't possible compelling?

It's being claimed that design can be clearly discerned in certain things based on function alone, implying that it can be distinguished from things which aren't. But since this shell game leaves no consideration for even the mere possibility of undesigned things to exist it clearly isn't a valid indicator of design in anything. To put it simply, it's like claiming to have a foolproof method of distinguishing the contents of column A from the contents of column B while simultaneously maintaining that column B can't even exist.

I don't understand how you can claim that everything has to be created because its so complex, but the infinitately MORE complex god doesn't have a creator? How does that make sense???

It doesn't. But it makes more sense than concluding that nothing intelligent is behind it all, especially when you weigh in other factors pointing to God. I'll be expanding on this in the "None wanted this" thread, as soon as I have time to do it justice.

yes. This is a good assumption and one that should be made. Why? Because every single supernatural explanation we have used in the past has been demolished by naturalistic explanations. Because supernatural explanations do not actually explain anything. Because supernatural explanations do not make accurate predictions.

That isn't true. Here is an example of supernatural explanations making accurate predictions:

Let us look at illness. Once upon a time it was thought to be caused by "evil spirits". That explanation is a projection of our selves onto the problem. What causes illness? Invisible people. That explanation predicts we could scare away or placate these invisible people through various methods - scary masks, rituals, offerings, etc. Thus, illness could be avoided using these methods. Did that actually explain anything? Heck no. Was that an accurate prediction? Heck no.

Fast forward a couple thousand years, and we came to understand illness comes from a variety of germs, bacteria and viruses. Does that explain? Heck yes. Does it make accurate predictions? Heck yes.

Science 1, primitive supernatural beliefs 0.

Need we tally up the score of the whole game or is this example illustrative?

Interestingly, though, the bible was ahead of science by around 2500 years on washing hands, cleanliness in general, and quarantine procedures.

Actually, it does. If gravity works the same way every time, all the time, then it is pretty safe to say if there is an invisible person behind it, the invisible person cannot do it any other way, is not at liberty to do otherwise. Thus, the invisible gravity person has no agency and is indistinguishable from a natural law.

Do you know that gravity works the same way, every time, every where, all the time? The constancy of our observation of the physical laws does not rule out agency; what you're assuming is the uniformity in nature. Why should there be uniformity in nature in the first place? How would you distinguish a natural law (why is there a law-like order in the Universe?) from agency?

Sure, gravity may describe the paths of the planets, but that does not rule out the possibility they are not pulled by gods in charriots through their respective courses. <-- this is what you are saying.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you must explain origins before you can say God isn't involved. Also, science really doesn't have an opinion either way.

That is a tautology without basis. The only reason to think yhwh is the creator of the universe is because that is what it says in his dusty PR manual written by his PR agents.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "science hasn't gotten anywhere near his territory." Until you clarify that, I cannot speak to it.

What I mean is, that science has nothing much to say about origins. Nothing it can prove, anyway. Even if you perfectly described everything in the Universe, you still wouldn't have a case against God until you also described the ultimate first cause of the Universe. You must explain the entire creation event if you want to encroach on Gods territory.

For a lot of reasons. For one, where did the mind come from? For two, I have no reason to suppose such a mind. For three, a mind is an emergent trait of a brain, which is a physical organ. When the brain dies, the mind disappears. No brain, no mind. You are talking about a disembodied personality, which is a contradiction in terms. Where in the world have you or anyone else ever encountered a disembodied personality?[/quote]

The mind of God didn't come from anywhere, as scripture describes God to be eternal. The mind is also non-physical, which could presumably include an eternal spirit. You believe that the mind is an emergent trait of the brain. I say you have one because you have a spirit. Funnily enough, science has minimized the necessity of the brain in regards to the mind:

You say if the brain dies so does the mind. How do you know that? As far as disembodied personalities go, the definition of the word person includes a rational being, which says nothing of whether they need a body or not.